High Court · 2025

Crl.O.P.No. 4818 of 2025IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 24.02.2025CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYANCrl.O.P.No. 4818 of 2025andCrl.M.P.Nos.3111 & 3114 of 2025 1.Viji @ Vijayan2.Aravinth3.Shanmugasundaram4.Durgadevi....PetitionersVs1. The State Rep. by itsThe Inspector of Police,All Women Police Station,Vedharanyam,Nagapattinam District.2. Yogeswari....RespondentsPRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records pertaining to the charge sheet in Spl.S.C.No.42 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the Special Court under POCSO Act, Nagapattinam and quash the same.For Petitioner: Mr.R.MurugabharathiFor R1: Mr.A.Gopinath Government Advocate (Crl.Side)Page 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 4818 of 2025O R D E RThis Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.42 of 2021 on the file of the Special Court under POCSO Act, Nagapattinam, thereby taken cognizance for the offences under Sections 5(I), 6, 17, 18 of the POCSO Act and 506(1), 376(2)(j) of IPC.2. The case of the prosecution is that A3 with a bad intention hugged the victim/defacto complainant's from behind and kissed her without her consent. Further it is alleged that A4, who is the neighbour of the victim girl and wife of A2, on 26.06.2020 at around 9.00 a.m., took the victim to the poultry farm owned by A1, who is the friend of A2. At the poultry farm, A4 gave a cool drink to the victim girl, after consuming which the victim lost conscious. When the victim regained consciousness, she found only A1 and A4 present at the poultry farm. She felt pain all over the body and she was completely exhausted. She returned home along with A4. On the next day, A1 called the victim girl over the phone and informed her that he had committed sexual intercourse with her while she was unconscious and had taken a video-graph of the same. Thereafter, A1 allegedly used the said video to Page 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 4818 of 2025threaten the victim and coerced her into engaging in sexual acts with him on several occasions at his poultry farm. It is further alleged that on one occasion, A2 forcibly hugged the victim girl and attempted to compel her to have sexual intercourse with him. As a result of these incidents, she avoided the phone calls of A1. Therefore, A1 threatened the victim girl with dire consequences and warned that he would upload the video on social media. Hence, this case.3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the second respondent is not interested to proceed with the case and even after receipt of the summons, she did not appear before the Trial Court. Therefore, he prayed that this Court may issue necessary directions to secure the appearance of the second respondent before this Court.4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the first respondent submitted that based on the complaint lodged by the second respondent, initially the first respondent registered a case in Crime No.7 of 2020 for the offences under Sections 5(I), 6, 17, 18 of POCSO Act and 506(i), 376(2)(J) of IPC. Later the case was altered into Page 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 4818 of 2025Sections 3, 4, 5(I), 6, 11(5), 12, 17, 18 of POCSO Act. After completion of the investigation, the final report was filed before the Special Court under POCSO Act, Nagapattinam and the same has been taken cognizance in Spl.S.C.42 of 2021.5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.6. A perusal of the submissions as well as the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. reveals that there are serious allegations as against the petitioner. In fact, the first respondent, aged about 43 years old, under the guise of love affair, administered a cool drink and provided to the victim girl in a deceitful manner. After consuming the cool drink, the second respondent fell unconscious. Thereafter, the first petitioner had sexual intercourse with the victim and the act was also video-graphed. After showing the video and threatening the victim, he used her to sexual intercourse with the victim on several occasions. Utilising the said circumstances, the other accused also engaged in similar acts. As such, the petitioners committed very serious offences on the minor victim girl.Page 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 4818 of 20257.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (4) SCC 351 in the case of Devendra Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar & Anr., (Crl.A.No.579 of 2019 dated 02.04.2019) while dealing with the petition to quash the entire criminal proceedings held that the High Courts have no jurisdiction to appreciate the statement of the witnesses and record a finding that there were inconsistencies in their statements and therefore, there was no prima facie case made out as against the accused. It could be done only by the trial Court while deciding the issues on the merits or/and by the Appellate Court while deciding the appeal arising out of the final order that the charge sheet has been laid on the basis of the inconsistency statement under Section 180 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 8.Fruther, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the judgment reported in 2019 (10) SCC 686 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Arvind Khanna, (Crl.A.No.1572 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019) held that the High Courts cannot record the findings on the disputed facts. The defence of the accused is to be tested after appreciation of evidence by the trial Court during the trial. Therfore, this Court has no power to consider the disputed facts under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.Page 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 4818 of 20259.The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in another judgment dated 02.12.2019 passed in Crl.A.No.1817 of 2019 in the case of M.Jayanthi Vs. K.R.Meenakshi & anr, held that while considering the petition for quashment of complaint or charge sheet, the Court should not embark upon an enquiry into the validity of the evidence available. All that the Court should see is as to whether there are allegations in the complaint which form the basis for the ingredients that consititue certain offences complained of. Further, the Court can also see whether the preconditions requisite for taking cognizance have been complied with or not and whether the allegations contained in the complaint, even if accepted in entirety, would not consititue the offence alleged. Whether the accused will be able to prove the allegations in a manner known to law would arise only at a later stage i.e., during trial. 10.Further this Court cannot observe at this stage whether the initiation of criminal proceeding itself is malicious or not. The same is required to be considered at the conclusion of the trial. Therefore, the ground raised by the petitioner to quash the final report/charge sheet cannot be entertained to quash the entire proceedings. Page 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 4818 of 202511.In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings in Spl.S.C.No.42 of 2021 on the file of the Special Court under POCSO Act, Nagapattinam. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court. However, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. 12. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed. 24.02.2025Index: Yes/NoNeutral citation: Yes/NoSpeaking/non-speaking orderLppTo1. Special Court under POCSO Act,Nagapattinam.2.The Inspector of Police,All Women Police Station,Vedharanyam,Nagapattinam District.3.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.Page 7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No. 4818 of 2025G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.Lpp Crl.O.P.No. 4818 of 2025 24.02.2025Page 8 of 8